Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notice of Meetings, 47387-47398 [2015-19318]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47387-47398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19318]



[[Page 47387]]

Vol. 80

Thursday,

No. 151

August 6, 2015

Part XV





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 20





Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; 
Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 47388]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034: FF09M21200-156-FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018-BA70


Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal 
Proposals; Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service or 
we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain 
migratory game birds for the 2016-17 hunting season. We annually 
prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select 
hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, 
announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway 
Council (SRC) meetings, describes the regulatory alternatives for the 
2016-17 duck hunting seasons, and requests proposals from Indian tribes 
that wish to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations 
on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. Migratory game bird 
hunting seasons provide opportunities for recreation and sustenance; 
aid Federal, State, and tribal governments in the management of 
migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with 
migratory game bird population status and habitat conditions.

DATES: 
    Comments: Following subsequent Federal Register notices, you will 
be given an opportunity to submit comments on this proposed rule and 
the subsequent proposed frameworks by January 15, 2016. Tribes must 
submit proposals and related comments on or before December 1, 2015.
    Meetings: The SRC will meet to consider and develop proposed 
regulations for migratory game bird hunting on October 20-21, 2015. 
Meetings on both days will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-
MB-2015-0034.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034; Division of Policy, Performance, and 
Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
    We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all 
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. See the Public Comments section, below, for 
more information.
    Meetings: The SRC will meet at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
5600 American Boulevard, Bloomington, MN 55437.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory 
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 
Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; (703) 
358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

New Process for the Annual Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations

    As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, we developed a 
schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more 
efficient and will provide dates much earlier than was possible under 
the old process. This will make planning much easier for the States and 
all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning with the 
2016-17 hunting season, we are using a new schedule for establishing 
our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will combine the 
current early- and late-season regulatory actions into a single 
process, based on predictions derived from long-term biological 
information and established harvest strategies that will establish 
migratory bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we have 
used for many years. Under the new process, we will develop proposed 
hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior 
year. We will finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby 
enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in 
early summer.
    This proposed rule is the first in a series of rules implementing 
this new process. This year, there will be a one-time overlap in the 
regulatory processes for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons.

Background and Overview

    Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in 
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for 
the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing, 
possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 
export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg'' of migratory game 
birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These 
regulations are written after giving due regard to ``the zones of 
temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, 
breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such 
birds'' and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This 
responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal 
agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United 
States. However, migratory game bird management is a cooperative effort 
of State, Tribal, and Federal governments.
    The Service develops migratory game bird hunting regulations by 
establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag 
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting.
    Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the 
Service has administratively divided the Nation into four Flyways for 
the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway 
(Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a 
formal organization generally composed of one member from each State 
and Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through 
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), 
also assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management 
information for Federal, State, and Provincial governments, as well as 
private conservation agencies and the general public.
    The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, 
located at 50 CFR part 20, is constrained by three primary factors. 
Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rulemaking 
process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of 
migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities 
and thus the dates on which these results are available for 
consideration and deliberation.
    For the regulatory cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze, and 
interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all 
those involved in the process through a series of published status 
reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested 
parties. Because the Service is required

[[Page 47389]]

to take abundance of migratory game birds and other factors into 
consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout 
the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian 
Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife management 
agencies. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, we 
consider factors such as population size and trend, geographical 
distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and 
wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. 
After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and 
areas for migratory game bird hunting, States may select season dates, 
bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. 
States may always be more conservative in their selections than the 
Federal frameworks, but never more liberal.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    The SRC will meet October 20-21, 2015, to review information on the 
current status of migratory game birds and develop 2016-17 migratory 
game bird regulations recommendations for these species. In accordance 
with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public 
observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the 
matters discussed.

Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings

    Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings 
of the four Flyway Councils this September and October. Although 
agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 
a.m. on the days indicated. Several of the meetings will be conducted 
via conference call.
    Atlantic Flyway Council: October 6.
    Mississippi Flyway Council: September 30.
    Central Flyway Council: October 8, Holiday Inn and Suites, 6900 
Tower Road, Denver, CO.
    Pacific Flyway Council: September 22.

Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons

    This document announces our intent to establish open hunting 
seasons and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated 
groups or species of migratory game birds for 2016-17 in the contiguous 
United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 
under Sec. Sec.  20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K 
of 50 CFR part 20.
    For the 2016-17 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose 
regulations for certain designated members of the avian families 
Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons); 
Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules); 
and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals 
under Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations 
(Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl 
flyways and mourning dove management units, and a description of the 
data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process, in the 
March 14, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9618).

Regulatory Schedule for 2016-17

    This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental, 
and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting 
regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for 
public comment in the Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest, 
and other information become available. Major steps in the 2016-17 
regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register 
notifications are illustrated in the diagram at the end of this 
proposed rule. All publication dates of Federal Register documents are 
target dates.
    All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting 
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These 
headings are:

1. Ducks
    A. General Harvest Strategy
    B. Regulatory Alternatives
    C. Zones and Split Seasons
    D. Special Seasons/Species Management
    i. September Teal Seasons
    ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
    iii. Black Ducks
    iv. Canvasbacks
    v. Pintails
    vi. Scaup
    vii. Mottled Ducks
    viii. Wood Ducks
    ix. Youth Hunt
    x. Mallard Management Units
    xi. Other
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
    A. Special Seasons
    B. Regular Seasons
    C. Special Late Seasons
5. White-fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
16. Doves
17. Alaska
18. Hawaii
19. Puerto Rico
20. Virgin Islands
21. Falconry
22. Other

    Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to 
numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to 
note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and 
remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
    The regulatory alternatives for the 2016-17 duck hunting seasons 
are contained at the end of this document. We will publish proposed 
season frameworks in mid-December 2015. We will publish final 
regulatory frameworks in late February 2016.

Review of Public Comments

    This proposed rulemaking contains the regulatory alternatives for 
the 2016-17 duck hunting seasons. This proposed rulemaking also 
describes other recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals 
that vary from the 2015-16 regulations and issues requiring early 
discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes. We will 
publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop 
final frameworks for the 2016-17 season. We seek additional information 
and comments on this proposed rule.

Consolidation of Notices

    For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice 
of intent to establish open migratory game bird hunting seasons and the 
request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the 
annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the 
remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For 
inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the 
following personnel:
    Region 1 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and the Pacific 
Islands)--Nanette Seto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th 
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.
    Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)--Greg Hughes, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; 
(505) 248-7885.
    Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Ohio, and Wisconsin)--Dave Scott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 
American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; (612) 713-
5101.
    Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

[[Page 47390]]

Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, South 
Carolina, and Tennessee)--Laurel Barnhill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, GA 30345; (404) 
679-4000.
    Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia)--Pam Toschik, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589; 
(413) 253-8610.
    Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)--Casey Stemler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, CO 80225; 
(303) 236-8145.
    Region 7 (Alaska)--Pete Probasco, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786-3423.
    Region 8 (California and Nevada)--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846; (916) 414-6727.

Requests for Tribal Proposals

Background

    Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed 
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 
23467) to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on 
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and 
ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal 
requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for 
some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both 
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The 
guidelines include possibilities for:
    (1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members, 
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place 
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected 
by the surrounding State(s);
    (2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual 
Federal frameworks for season dates, season length, and daily bag and 
possession limits; and
    (3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, 
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added 
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
    In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines 
must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed 
season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and 
Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds 
(Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have 
reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-
reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to 
the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for 
nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of 
reservations where tribes have full wildlife management authority over 
such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have 
reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian 
lands.
    Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird 
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our 
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations 
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the 
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations 
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such 
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on 
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When 
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of 
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and 
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to 
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded 
lands. It is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to request 
consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the Federal 
Register. We will not presume to make a determination, without being 
advised by either a tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not 
worthy of formal consultation.
    One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal 
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such 
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, 
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by 
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the 
status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of 
these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for 
migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on 
lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to 
consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting 
regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members.
    Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe 
that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved 
hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while also 
ensuring that the migratory game bird resource receives necessary 
protection. The conservation of this important international resource 
is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes 
to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which 
the reservation is located.

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

    Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting 
regulations for the 2016-17 migratory game bird hunting season should 
submit a proposal that includes:
    (1) The requested migratory game bird hunting season dates and 
other details regarding the proposed regulations;
    (2) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; and
    (3) Tribal capabilities to enforce migratory game bird hunting 
regulations.
    For those situations where it could be shown that failure to limit 
Tribal harvest could seriously impact the migratory game bird resource, 
we also request information on the methods employed to monitor harvest 
and any potential steps taken to limit level of harvest.
    A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory 
game bird season for nontribal members should specify this request in 
its proposal, rather than request a date that might not be within the 
final Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more 
restrictive regulations than Federal regulations will permit for 
nontribal members, the proposal should request the same daily bag and 
possession limits and season length for migratory game birds that 
Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in 
which the reservation is located.

Tribal Proposal Procedures

    We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in 
later Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for 
review by us and the public, Indian tribes that desire special 
migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2016-17 hunting season 
should submit their proposals no later than December 1, 2015. Tribes 
should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals to the 
appropriate Service Regional Office listed above under the caption 
Consolidation of Notices. Tribes that

[[Page 47391]]

request special migratory game bird hunting regulations for tribal 
members on ceded lands should send a courtesy copy of the proposal to 
officials in the affected State(s).

Public Comments

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, 
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written 
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed 
regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. 
Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to 
final regulations that differ from these proposals.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in the 
ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered 
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not 
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section. We will post 
all comments in their entirety--including your personal identifying 
information--on https://www.regulations.gov. Before including your 
address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying 
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire 
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made 
publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to 
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials 
we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing 
this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 
Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
    For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific 
comment periods. We will consider, but may not respond in detail to, 
each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive 
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in 
any final rules.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration

    The programmatic document, ``Second Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations 
Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),'' filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, 
addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual 
framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We 
published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 
2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 
45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting 
frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental 
assessments, the most recent being ``Duck Hunting Regulations for 2014-
15,'' with its corresponding August 21, 2014, finding of no significant 
impact. In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled 
``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian 
Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the address indicated 
under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Before issuance of the 2016-17 migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act), to 
ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or 
destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation 
programs for those species. Consultations under section 7 of the Act 
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental 
proposed rulemaking documents.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 
rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is 
significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy.
    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for 
improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.
    An economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This 
analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing 
Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see 
discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). We will use 
this analysis again for the 2016-17 season. This analysis estimated 
consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for 
other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives 
are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those 
issued during the 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations 
allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal 
regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 season. For the 
2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer 
surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. We also chose 
alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, the 2012-13, 
the 2014-15, and the 2015-16 seasons. The 2013-14 analysis is part of 
the record for this rule and is available at https://www.regulations.gov 
at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant 
economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the 
economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business 
entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This 
analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued 
a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently 
updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2013. The primary source of 
information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting 
is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-
year intervals. The 2013 Analysis was based on the 2011 National 
Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S.

[[Page 47392]]

Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was 
estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.5 
billion at small businesses in 2013. Copies of the Analysis are 
available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird Management 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or from https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This proposed rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined 
above, this rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. However, because this rule would establish hunting 
seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption 
contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection 
that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not 
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. OMB has reviewed and approved the 
information collection requirements associated with migratory bird 
surveys and assigned the following OMB control numbers:
     1018-0019--North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey 
(expires 5/31/2018).
     1018-0023--Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 6/30/2017). 
Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird 
Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this 
proposed rulemaking would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in 
any given year on local or State government or private entities. 
Therefore, this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined 
that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and 
that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 
12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings 
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy 
of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory 
taking of any property. In fact, these rules would allow hunters to 
exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce 
restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to 
adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this 
action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 
evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and 
have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. 
However, in this proposed rule, we solicit proposals for special 
migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian 
reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 
2016-17 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals will be 
contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these actions, we 
have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.

Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from 
which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory 
birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on 
Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the 
ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their 
individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive 
than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed 
in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This 
process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks 
from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on 
their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct 
effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of 
Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or 
administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these 
regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Authority

    The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2016-17 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, 
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.


[[Page 47393]]


    Dated: July 9, 2015.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)

    Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat 
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway 
Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. No changes from 
the 2015-16 frameworks are being proposed at this time. Other issues 
requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or 
tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. Only those containing substantial recommendations 
are discussed below.
A. General Harvest Strategy
    We propose to continue using adaptive harvest management (AHM) to 
help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2016-17 
season. AHM permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain 
regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that 
uncertainty over time. We use AHM to evaluate four alternative 
regulatory levels for duck hunting based on the population status of 
mallards. (We enact other hunting regulations for species of special 
concern, such as canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails).
Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways
    The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of 
mallards that contributes primarily to each Flyway. In the Atlantic 
Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the population status of 
mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54 
and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region). 
In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations 
based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-
continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal 
survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, we set hunting 
regulations based on the status and dynamics of western mallards. 
Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon 
Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in 
California and Oregon (as based on State-conducted surveys).
    For the 2016-17 season, we recommend continuing to use independent 
optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each 
mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for eastern 
mallards, mid-continent mallards and western mallards independently, 
based upon the breeding stock that contributes primarily to each 
Flyway. We detailed implementation of this AHM decision framework for 
western and mid-continent mallards in the July 24, 2008, Federal 
Register (73 FR 43290) and for eastern mallards in the July 20, 2012, 
Federal Register (77 FR 42920).
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Changes to the AHM 
Process
    For the 2016-17 season, the current early- and late-season 
regulatory actions will be combined into a new single process. 
Migratory bird hunting regulations will be based on predictions from 
models derived from long-term biological information or the most 
recently collected monitoring data, and established harvest strategies. 
Since 1995, the Service and Flyway Councils have applied the principles 
of adaptive management to inform harvest management decisions in the 
face of uncertainty while trying to learn about system (bird 
populations) responses to harvest regulations and environmental 
changes. Prior to the timing and process changes necessary for 
implementation of SEIS 2013, the annual AHM process began with the 
observation of the system's state each spring followed by an updating 
of model weights and the derivation of an optimal harvest policy that 
was then used to make a state-dependent decision (i.e., breeding 
population estimates were used with a policy matrix to inform harvest 
regulatory decisions). The system's state then evolves over time in 
response to the decision and natural variation in population dynamics. 
The following spring, the monitoring programs observe the state of the 
system and the iterative decision-making process continues forward in 
time. However, with the changes in decision timing specified by the 
SEIS, the post-survey AHM process will not be possible because 
monitoring information describing the system's state will not be 
available at the time the decision must be made. As a result, the 
optimization framework used to derive the current harvest policy can no 
longer calculate current and future harvest values as a function of the 
current system's and model's states. To address this issue, we adjusted 
the optimization procedures to calculate harvest values conditional on 
the last observed state of the system and regulatory decision.
    Results and analysis of our work is contained in a technical report 
that provides a summary of revised methods and assessment results based 
on updated AHM protocols developed in response to the preferred 
alternative specified in the SEIS. The report describes necessary 
changes to optimization procedures and decision processes for the 
implementation of AHM for midcontinent, eastern and western mallards, 
northern pintails, and scaup decision frameworks.
    Results indicate that the necessary adjustments to the optimization 
procedures and AHM protocols to account for changes in decision timing 
are not expected to result in major changes to expected management 
performance for mallard, pintail, and scaup AHM. In general, pre-survey 
(or pre-SEIS necessary changes) harvest policies were similar to 
harvest policies based on new post-survey (or post-SEIS necessary 
changes) AHM protocols. We found some subtle differences in the degree 
to which strategies exhibited knife-edged regulatory changes in the 
pre-survey policies with a reduction in the number of cells indicating 
moderate regulations. In addition, pre-survey policies became more 
liberal when the previous regulatory decisions were more conservative. 
These patterns were consistent for each AHM decision-making framework. 
Overall, a comparison of simulation results of the pre- and post-survey 
protocols did not suggest substantive changes in the frequency of 
regulations or in the expected average population size. These results 
suggest that the additional form of uncertainty that the change in 
decision timing introduces is not expected to limit our expected 
harvest management performance with the adoption of the pre-survey AHM 
protocols.
    A complete copy of the AHM report can be found on https://www.regulations.gov or at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.
Final 2016-17 AHM Protocol
    We will detail the final AHM protocol for the 2016-17 season in the 
supplemental proposed rule, which we will publish in mid-December (see 
Schedule of Biological Information Availability, Regulations Meetings 
and

[[Page 47394]]

Federal Register Publications for the 2016-17 Seasons at the end of 
this proposed rule for further information). We will propose a specific 
regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways to use for their 2016-17 
seasons after information becomes available in late August 2015.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
    The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM 
was adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon recommendations from the 
Flyway Councils, we extended framework dates in the ``moderate'' and 
``liberal'' regulatory alternatives by changing the opening date from 
the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24, 
and by changing the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to 
the last Sunday in January. These extended dates were made available 
with no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. At that time 
we stated our desire to keep these changes in place for 3 years to 
allow for a reasonable opportunity to monitor the impacts of framework-
date extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest before 
considering any subsequent use (67 FR 12501; March 19, 2002).
    For 2016-17, we propose to utilize the same regulatory alternatives 
that are in effect for the 2015-16 season (see accompanying table for 
specifics of the regulatory alternatives). Alternatives are specified 
for each Flyway and are designated as ``RES'' for the restrictive, 
``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
    Zones and split seasons are ``special regulations'' designed to 
distribute hunting opportunities and harvests according to temporal, 
geographic, and demographic variability in waterfowl and other 
migratory game bird populations. For ducks, States have been allowed 
the option of dividing their allotted hunting days into two (or in some 
cases three) segments to take advantage of species-specific peaks of 
abundance or to satisfy hunters in different areas who want to hunt 
during the peak of waterfowl abundance in their area. However, the 
split-season option does not fully satisfy many States who wish to 
provide a more equitable distribution of harvest opportunities. 
Therefore, we also have allowed the establishment of independent 
seasons in up to four zones within States for the purpose of providing 
more equitable distribution of harvest opportunity for hunters 
throughout the State.
    In 1978, we prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the use of 
zones to set duck hunting regulations. A primary tenet of the 1978 EA 
was that zoning would be for the primary purpose of providing equitable 
distribution of duck hunting opportunities within a State or region and 
not for the purpose of increasing total annual waterfowl harvest in the 
zoned areas. In fact, target harvest levels were to be adjusted 
downward if they exceeded traditional levels as a result of zoning. 
Subsequent to the 1978 EA, we conducted a review of the use of zones 
and split seasons in 1990. In 2011, we prepared a new EA analyzing some 
specific proposed changes to the zone and split season guidelines. The 
current guidelines were then finalized in 2011 (76 FR 53536; August 26, 
2011).
    Currently, every 5 years, States are afforded the opportunity to 
change the zoning and split season configuration within which they set 
their annual duck hunting regulations. The next regularly scheduled 
open season for changes to zone and split season configurations is in 
2016, for use during the 2016-20 period. However, as we discussed in 
the September 23, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 56864), and the April 
13, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 19852), we are implementing 
significant changes to the annual regulatory process as outlined in the 
2013 SEIS. As such, the previously identified May 1, 2016, due date for 
zone and split season configuration changes that was developed under 
the current regulatory process, is too late for those States wishing to 
change zone and split season configurations for implementation in the 
2016-17 season. Under the new regulatory schedule we anticipate 
publishing the proposed rule for all 2016-17 migratory bird seasons 
sometime this fall--approximately 30 days after the SRC meeting (which 
is scheduled for October 27-29, 2015). A final rule tentatively would 
be published 75 days after the proposed rule (but no later than April 
1). This schedule would preclude inclusion of new zone descriptions in 
the proposed rule as had been done in past open seasons and would not 
be appropriate because it would preclude the ability for the public to 
comment on these new individual State zone descriptions. Therefore, we 
need to include any new proposed 2016-20 zone descriptions in the 2016-
17 hunting seasons proposed rule document that will tentatively be 
published in mid-December this year.
    Considering all of the above, we will utilize a two-phase approach. 
For those States wishing to change zone and split season configurations 
in time for the 2016-17 season, we will need to receive new 
configuration and zone descriptions by December 1, 2015. States that do 
not send in new zone and split season configuration changes until the 
previously identified May 1, 2016, deadline will have those changes 
implemented in the 2017-18 hunting season. The next scheduled open 
season would remain in 2021 for the 2021-25 seasons.
    For the current open season, the guidelines for duck zone and split 
season configurations will be as follows:
Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split Seasons
    The following zone and split-season guidelines apply only for the 
regular duck season:
    (1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a 
contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for 
the regular duck season.
    (2) Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not 
subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and 
split seasons for ducks.
    (3) Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will 
be allowed for any grandfathered arrangement, and changes are limited 
to the open season.
    (4) Once a zone and split option is selected during an open season, 
it must remain in place for the following 5 years.
    Any State may continue the configuration used in the previous 5-
year period. If changes are made, the zone and split-season 
configuration must conform to one of the following options:
    (1) No more than four zones with no splits,
    (2) Split seasons (no more than 3 segments) with no zones, or
    (3) No more than three zones with the option for 2-way (2-segment) 
split seasons in one, two, or all zones.
Grandfathered Zone and Split Arrangements
    When we first implemented the zone and split guidelines in 1991, 
several States had completed experiments with zone and split 
arrangements different from our original options. We offered those 
States a one-time opportunity to continue (``grandfather'') those 
arrangements, with the stipulation that only minor changes could be 
made to zone boundaries. If any of those States now wish to change 
their zone and split arrangement:
    (1) The new arrangement must conform to one of the 3 options 
identified above; and

[[Page 47395]]

    (2) The State cannot go back to the grandfathered arrangement that 
it previously had in place.
Management Units
    We will continue to utilize the specific limitations previously 
established regarding the use of zones and split seasons in special 
management units, including the High Plains Mallard Management Unit. We 
note that the original justification and objectives established for the 
High Plains Mallard Management Unit provided for additional days of 
hunting opportunity at the end of the regular duck season. In order to 
maintain the integrity of the management unit, current guidelines 
prohibit simultaneous zoning and/or 3-way split seasons within a 
management unit and the remainder of the State. Removal of this 
limitation would allow additional proliferation of zone and split 
configurations and compromise the original objectives of the management 
unit.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
    For the 2016-17, we will utilize the 2015 breeding population 
estimate of 8.3 million blue-winged teal from the traditional survey 
area and the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy. 
Thus, we will propose a 16-day September teal season in the Atlantic, 
Central, and Mississippi Flyways for 2016.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Since 1994, we have followed a canvasback harvest strategy whereby 
if canvasback population status and production are sufficient to permit 
a harvest of one canvasback per day nationwide for the entire length of 
the regular duck season, while still attaining an objective of 500,000 
birds the following spring, the season on canvasbacks should be opened. 
A partial season would be allowed if the estimated allowable harvest 
was below that associated with a 1-bird daily bag limit for the entire 
season. If neither of these conditions can be met, the harvest strategy 
calls for a closed season on canvasbacks nationwide. In 2008 (73 FR 
43290; July 24, 2008), we announced our decision to modify the 
canvasback harvest strategy to incorporate the option for a 2-bird 
daily bag limit for canvasbacks when the predicted breeding population 
the subsequent year exceeds 725,000 birds.
    Since the current harvest strategy relies on information that will 
not yet be available at the time we need to establish proposed 
frameworks under the new regulatory process, the current canvasback 
harvest management strategy will no longer be usable for the 2016-17 
season and beyond. At this time we do not have a new harvest strategy 
to propose for use in the future. Thus, we will review the most recent 
information on canvasback populations, habitat conditions, and harvests 
with the goal of compiling the best information available for use in 
making a harvest management decision. We will share these results with 
the Flyways during their fall meetings, with the intention of adopting 
a one-time decision-making approach in October for the 2016-17 seasons. 
Over the next year, we will work with the Flyway technical committees 
and councils to develop a new harvest strategy for use in subsequent 
years.

6. Brant

    As we discussed in the June 11 (80 FR 33223) and July 21 (80 FR 
43266), 2015, Federal Registers, for the 2015-16 Atlantic brant season, 
we will continue to use the existing Flyway Cooperative Management Plan 
for this species to determine the appropriate hunting regulations. 
However, as we discuss below, the process for determining regulations 
for the 2016-17 season will need to be modified. In the April 30, 2014 
(79 FR 24512), and the April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19852), Federal Registers, 
we discussed how, under the new regulatory process, the current early- 
and late-season regulatory actions will be combined into a new, single 
process beginning with the 2016-17 seasons. Regulatory proposals will 
be developed using biological data from the preceding year(s), model 
predictions, and/or most recently accumulated data that are available 
at the time the proposals are being formulated. Individual harvest 
strategies will be modified using data from the previous year(s) 
because the current year's data would not be available for many of the 
strategies. Further, we stated that during this transition period, 
harvest strategies and prescriptions would be modified to fit into the 
new regulatory schedule. Atlantic brant is one such species that will 
require some modifications to the regulatory process that we have 
largely used since 1992 to establish the annual frameworks.
    In developing the annual proposed frameworks for Atlantic brant in 
the past, the Atlantic Flyway Council and the Service used the number 
of brant counted during the Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey (MWS) in the 
Atlantic Flyway, and took into consideration the brant population's 
expected productivity that summer. The MWS is conducted each January, 
and expected brant productivity is based on early-summer observations 
of breeding habitat conditions and nesting effort in important brant 
nesting areas. Thus, the data under consideration were available before 
the annual Flyway and SRC decision-making meetings took place in late 
July. Although the existing regulatory alternatives for Atlantic brant 
were developed by factoring together long-term productivity rates 
(observed during November and December productivity surveys) with 
estimated observed harvest under different framework regulations, the 
primary decision-making criterion for selecting the annual frameworks 
was the MWS count.
    In the April 13, 2015, Federal Register, we presented the major 
steps in the 2016-17 regulatory cycle relating to biological 
information availability, open public meetings, and Federal Register 
notifications. Under the new regulatory schedule due to be implemented 
this fall and winter for the 2016-17 migratory bird hunting 
regulations, neither the expected 2016 brant production information 
(available summer 2016) nor the 2016 MWS count (conducted in January 
2016) will be available this October, when the decisions on proposed 
Atlantic brant frameworks for the 2016-17 seasons must be made. 
However, the 2016 MWS will be completed and winter brant data will be 
available by the expected publication of the final frameworks (late 
February 2016). Therefore, following discussions with the Atlantic 
Flyway Council this fall, we will be proposing frameworks for Atlantic 
brant in 2016-17 using the process and alternatives very similar to 
that laid out in the July 21, 2015, Federal Register.
    For a more detailed discussion of the various technical aspects of 
the new regulatory process, we refer the reader to the 2013 SEIS on our 
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.

9. Sandhill Cranes

    As we discussed in the July 21, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 
43266), the current harvest strategy used to calculate the allowable 
harvest of Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of sandhill cranes does not 
fit well within the the new regulatory process, similar to the Atlantic 
brant issue discussed above under 6. Brant. Currently, results of the 
fall survey of RMP sandhill cranes, upon which the annual allowable 
harvest is based, will continue to be released between December 15 and 
January 31 each year, which is after the date for which proposed 
frameworks

[[Page 47396]]

will be formulated in the new regulatory process. If the usual 
procedures for determining allowable harvest were used, data 2-4 years 
old would be used to determine the annual allocation for RMP sandhill 
cranes. Due to the variability in fall survey counts and recruitment 
for this population, and their impact on the annual harvest 
allocations, we agree that relying on data that is 2-4 years old is not 
ideal. Thus, we agreed that a formula to determine the annual allowable 
harvest for RMP sandhill cranes should be used under the new regulatory 
schedule and proposed to use as such. That formula uses information on 
abundance and recruitment collected annually through operational 
monitoring programs, as well as constant values based on past research 
or monitoring for survival of fledglings to breeding age and harvest 
retrieval rate. The formula is:

H = C x P x R x L x f

Where:

H = total annual allowable harvest;
C = the average of the three most recent, reliable fall population 
indices;
P = the average proportion of fledged chicks in the fall population 
in the San Luis Valley during the most recent 3 years for which data 
are available;
R = estimated recruitment of fledged chicks to breeding age (current 
estimate is 0.5);
L = retrieval rate of 0.80 (allowance for an estimated 20 percent 
crippling loss based on hunter interviews); and
f = (C/16,000) (a variable factor used to adjust the total harvest 
to achieve a desired effect on the entire population)

    We note that this proposed formula is identical to that used in the 
current Pacific and Central Flyway management plan for this population.
    A final estimate for the allowable harvest would be available to 
publish in the final rule, allowing us to use data that is 1-3 years 
old, as is currently practiced. We look forward to continuing 
discussions and work on the RMP crane issue with the Central and 
Pacific Flyway Councils this summer and fall in preparation for the 
2016-17 season.

16. Doves

    As we discussed in the April 13 and July 21, 2015, Federal 
Registers, 2016 is the next open season for changes to dove zone and 
split configurations for the 2016-20 period. The current guidelines 
were approved in 2006 (see July 28, 2006, Federal Register, 71 FR 
43008), for the use of zones and split seasons for doves with 
implementation beginning in the 2007-08 season. While the initial 
period was for 4 years (2007-10), we further stated that beginning in 
2011, zoning would conform to a 5-year period.
    As discussed above under C. Zones and Split Seasons for ducks, 
because of unintentional and unanticipated issues with changing the 
regulatory schedule for the 2016-17 season, we have decided that a two-
phase approach is appropriate. For those States wishing to change zone 
and split season configurations in time for the 2016-17 season, we will 
need to receive that new configuration and zone descriptions by 
December 1, 2015. For those States that do not send in zone and split 
season configuration changes until the previously identified May 1, 
2016, we will implement those changes in the 2017-18 hunting season. 
The next normally scheduled open season will be in 2021 for the 2021-25 
seasons.
    For the current open season, the guidelines for dove zone and split 
season configurations will be as follows:
Guidelines for Dove Zones and Split Seasons in the Eastern and Central 
Mourning Dove Management Units
    (1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a 
contiguous boundary, for which independent seasons may be selected for 
dove hunting.
    (2) States may select a zone and split option during an open 
season. The option must remain in place for the following 5 years 
except that States may make a one-time change and revert to their 
previous zone and split configuration in any year of the 5-year period. 
Formal approval will not be required, but States must notify the 
Service before making the change.
    (3) Zoning periods for dove hunting will conform to those years 
used for ducks, e.g., 2016-20.
    (4) The zone and split configuration consists of two zones with the 
option for 3-way (3-segment) split seasons in one or both zones. As a 
grandfathered arrangement, Texas will have three zones with the option 
for 2-way (2-segment) split seasons in one, two, or all three zones.
    (5) States that do not wish to zone for dove hunting may split 
their seasons into no more than 3 segments.
    For the 2016-20 period, any State may continue the configuration 
used in 2011-15. If changes are made, the zone and split-season 
configuration must conform to one of the options listed above. If Texas 
uses a new configuration for the entirety of the 5-year period, it 
cannot go back to the grandfathered arrangement that it previously had 
in place.

[[Page 47397]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU15.019


[[Page 47398]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU15.020

[FR Doc. 2015-19318 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P